$5 Trillion Debt in 3 years

[Banned]

What a legacy Nancy Pelosi leaves. She presided over the largest deficit spending by any Speaker of the House (actually more than all the previous Speakers' deficit spending combined). Now she presides over the largest loss of Congressional seats by the party in power, since 1938.

Historic FAIL.

[lonewolf]

What a legacy Nancy Pelosi leaves. She presided over the largest deficit spending by any Speaker of the House (actually more than all the previous Speakers' deficit spending combined). Now she presides over the largest loss of Congressional seats by the party in power, since 1938.

Historic FAIL.

Sadly Joe, progressive liberals cannot understand that all spending derives from the House and that just about every member has their own pet set of continuing programs, special interests and pork projects that balloon spending way beyond the President's ability to comprehend it, let alone control it.

Here's how to cut discretionary spending...

ELIMINATE THESE DEPARTMENTS ALTOGETHER:

Energy
Education
Labor
HUD
HHS
Agriculture

Slash these and combine the necessary parts into one department:

Interior
Commerce
EPA

Move Veteran's affairs to DOD

Homeland Security? Doesn't that imply protecting the borders? How's that working for ya?

Not sure what to do with that clusterfuck of a department.

[Banned]

Good list Jeff, and not only eliminate those departments, but eliminate any and all federal funds being spent in those areas. Not one dollar of our tax dollars should go to the federal govt for education. It should all stay in the states and much more importantly, local communities, that is where students are educated.

[Hawk]

Good list Jeff, and not only eliminate those departments, but eliminate any and all federal funds being spent in those areas. Not one dollar of our tax dollars should go to the federal govt for education. It should all stay in the states and much more importantly, local communities, that is where students are educated.

What if a local community can't afford proper education without help ? Poor cities ?

[Hawk]

Homeland Security? Doesn't that imply protecting the borders? How's that working for ya?

Obama has set records for deportation. More in two years than Bush in eight years.

I agree, stopping them at the border is ideal. Should we send in the military ?

[lonewolf]

Good list Jeff, and not only eliminate those departments, but eliminate any and all federal funds being spent in those areas. Not one dollar of our tax dollars should go to the federal govt for education. It should all stay in the states and much more importantly, local communities, that is where students are educated.

What if a local community can't afford proper education without help ? Poor cities ?

Education is enumerated in each state's constitution, but nowhere to be found in the US Constitution.

You don't like education in your state?

MOVE!

EDIT: Also, show me a macro-scale correlation between spending more money on education and quality of education...you won't find one. You want better education...CRUSH THE TEACHER'S UNION UNDERFOOT!

You want better government? CRUSH THE SEIU, AFGE AND AFSCME UNIONS UNDERFOOT!

[lonewolf]

Homeland Security? Doesn't that imply protecting the borders? How's that working for ya?

Obama has set records for deportation. More in two years than Bush in eight years.

I agree, stopping them at the border is ideal. Should we send in the military ?

Bring the troops home and build a military base that consists of a 2-lane highway from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean with a 20' fence on either side and a platoon barracks every 10 miles.

Along the way, set up various training areas.

[Hawk]

As you all know, only Congress can spend Federal money. The spending bills originate in the House and the Speaker of the House is the most influential member of Congress concerning spending.

Nancy Pelosi said in 2007, when she became Speaker, "No new deficit spending". Since that day, the national DEBT has increased by $5 Trillion.

The DEBT has increased more with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker than all the other Speakers of the House COMBINED!!!!!!!

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/deb ... speaker-pe

Even though Pelosi was speaker of the 110 congress, Bush's 2007 budget was proposed to the 109 congress and passed before Pelosi was speaker. Hassert was the speaker.

With the job outsourcing under Bush, revenue was / is down.

Mandatory spending each year is in excess of 1.8 Trillion. The next largest spending is The Dept. of Defence and the war on terror.

Bush's tax cuts to the rich added to the deficit. And they did not add jobs as he predicted. But hey, let's do more of the same and let it fail again.

[f.sciarrillo]

[edt]

[Banned]

Bush's tax cuts to the rich added to the deficit. And they did not add jobs as he predicted. But hey, let's do more of the same and let it fail again.

Tax cuts do not cause deficits. Tax cuts stimulate the economy.

Spending causes deficits.

[Hawk]

Bush's tax cuts to the rich added to the deficit. And they did not add jobs as he predicted. But hey, let's do more of the same and let it fail again.

Tax cuts do not cause deficits. Tax cuts stimulate the economy.

Spending causes deficits.

I don't believe you said that. Where are all the jobs Bush created with these tax cuts ? How is it that Bush's tax cuts took us into a recession and nearly a depression ?

Joe, is you reduce revenue (tax cuts) without cutting spending the cuts add to the deficit. Bush's tax cuts to the rich over his term equaled about 1 Trillion. ONE TRILLION! Our deficit would be one trillion less than it is now if Bush had not cut taxes to the rich. And thew rich have not helped create any jobs, although they did get richer.

[Hawk]

I would like to know why the liberals are still bitching about Bush's spending and not looking at their own? I mean look at it, this congress has spent more than any in history combined. I think the kettle will be a deep black there people ..

I still think Bush had justification in his spending, with the defense. The liberals now want to cut that defense spending. Sure, that will really make us safe Frankly I think defense spending shouldn't even be on the table, anything else is possible, up to and including the white house budget ..

Bush's spending exceeded his revenue and he did not have the war budget on the same page. Bush would not allow the money being spent on the war to be added to the deficit. Read that twice.

Obama added the money being spent on the war to the deficit.

[Hawk]

I still think Bush had justification in his spending, with the defense. The liberals now want to cut that defense spending. Sure, that will really make us safe Frankly I think defense spending shouldn't even be on the table, anything else is possible, up to and including the white house budget ..

You can't have it both ways.

"Julie Andrzejewski (St. Cloud State University)

President Obama’s decision to increase military spending this year and in the future will result in the greatest administrative military spending since World War II. This decision is being made in spite of continued evidence of extreme waste, fraud, abuse, and corporate welfare in the military budget. At the same time, spending on “non-security” domestic programs such as education, nutrition, energy, and transportation will be frozen, resulting in inflationary cuts to essential services for the US public over the upcoming years."




White House Budget Director Peter R. Orszag rejected the notion that defense was asked to absorb a disproportionate share of the cuts. "Defense spending will increase by 4 percent in 2010," Mr. Orszag said. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, whom Mr. Obama retained from President Bush's Cabinet, "has said the defense budget needs reform," Mr. Orszag added.

[Hawk]

I would like to know why the liberals are still bitching about Bush's spending and not looking at their own? I mean look at it, this congress has spent more than any in history combined. I think the kettle will be a deep black there people.

No, the liberals don't like the deficit either. The liberals question is the same as mine has been to you for tha past two years, which you never have answered.

Why weren't you complaining when Bush doubled the deficit and took it to over TEN TRILLION ?

EDIT: Oh yeah, I do remember your answer. You said, "Bush didn't have a deficit". And like I say, you represent the typical uninformed Fox watcher.

[hicksjd9]

Hawk wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:
Good list Jeff, and not only eliminate those departments, but eliminate any and all federal funds being spent in those areas. Not one dollar of our tax dollars should go to the federal govt for education. It should all stay in the states and much more importantly, local communities, that is where students are educated.


What if a local community can't afford proper education without help ? Poor cities ?


Education is enumerated in each state's constitution, but nowhere to be found in the US Constitution.

You don't like education in your state?

MOVE!

EDIT: Also, show me a macro-scale correlation between spending more money on education and quality of education...you won't find one. You want better education...CRUSH THE TEACHER'S UNION UNDERFOOT!

You want better government? CRUSH THE SEIU, AFGE AND AFSCME UNIONS UNDERFOOT

While I understand the sentiment here, I will say that local communities will be forced to fund education when the states can't afford to. That means your millage (read: local taxes) will go WAY UP, to the tune of probably 1000 a year depending on the size of your community. Are you ready for that?

The state government cannot bear the cost of education and unless you want your children living in the stone age (no working computers in the classroom...really) some federal money must come into play. The computers we have now are over 10 years old. How many of you are loving your ten year old computers? Now try to teach a struggling student to use one so that they can compete in today's market.

I have mixed feelings about teachers unions. On one side, teachers are certainly underpaid even WITH the unions. The purpose of the unions was to raise wages to a practical level. What HAS happened is that a lot of lousy teachers have been kept in the system as a result of those unions. This is unfortunate. However, in this day and age where you can be fired for a picture of you on someone else's facebook, teachers need the unions to protect them from a statisticly small number of ridiculous (But LOUD) parents who make mountains out of molehills.

As far as Federal money is concerned, most of it is earmarked for special projects (like buying computers, or helping underprivileged, struggling students to have a smaller student to teacher ratio). States and school districts just can't afford to staff enough people to do the job. Do you want your child in a classroom with a ratio of 45:1? That's where it's going. In my district there are several classes of 30+ at the elementary level. When forming the foundations of basic skills like reading and math, students need more direct instruction. It is impossible to meet the specific needs of that many children in a day's time. If parents would help at home, it would be a different story, but that just isn't happening, especially with the kids who need it most. If you think you or your child has slipped through the cracks in our educational system, how much worse would it have been with a 35 or 45:1 student to teacher ratio?

The last thing we need to do is cut funding to our education. Education is the prevention, rather than the cure. I guarantee the cure will be MUCH more expensive than the prevention (as it always is), and it will be your undereducated kids (if we cut educational funding today) who will be paying for it.

Do you love this country and want it to succeed? If so, I'd recommend careful consideration of your beliefs on this matter.

[lonewolf]

Hawk wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:
Good list Jeff, and not only eliminate those departments, but eliminate any and all federal funds being spent in those areas. Not one dollar of our tax dollars should go to the federal govt for education. It should all stay in the states and much more importantly, local communities, that is where students are educated.


What if a local community can't afford proper education without help ? Poor cities ?


Education is enumerated in each state's constitution, but nowhere to be found in the US Constitution.

You don't like education in your state?

MOVE!

EDIT: Also, show me a macro-scale correlation between spending more money on education and quality of education...you won't find one. You want better education...CRUSH THE TEACHER'S UNION UNDERFOOT!

You want better government? CRUSH THE SEIU, AFGE AND AFSCME UNIONS UNDERFOOT

While I understand the sentiment here, I will say that local communities will be forced to fund education when the states can't afford to. That means your millage (read: local taxes) will go WAY UP, to the tune of probably 1000 a year depending on the size of your community. Are you ready for that?

The state government cannot bear the cost of education and unless you want your children living in the stone age (no working computers in the classroom...really) some federal money must come into play. The computers we have now are over 10 years old. How many of you are loving your ten year old computers? Now try to teach a struggling student to use one so that they can compete in today's market.

I have mixed feelings about teachers unions. On one side, teachers are certainly underpaid even WITH the unions. The purpose of the unions was to raise wages to a practical level. What HAS happened is that a lot of lousy teachers have been kept in the system as a result of those unions. This is unfortunate. However, in this day and age where you can be fired for a picture of you on someone else's facebook, teachers need the unions to protect them from a statisticly small number of ridiculous (But LOUD) parents who make mountains out of molehills.

As far as Federal money is concerned, most of it is earmarked for special projects (like buying computers, or helping underprivileged, struggling students to have a smaller student to teacher ratio). States and school districts just can't afford to staff enough people to do the job. Do you want your child in a classroom with a ratio of 45:1? That's where it's going. In my district there are several classes of 30+ at the elementary level. When forming the foundations of basic skills like reading and math, students need more direct instruction. It is impossible to meet the specific needs of that many children in a day's time. If parents would help at home, it would be a different story, but that just isn't happening, especially with the kids who need it most. If you think you or your child has slipped through the cracks in our educational system, how much worse would it have been with a 35 or 45:1 student to teacher ratio?

The last thing we need to do is cut funding to our education. Education is the prevention, rather than the cure. I guarantee the cure will be MUCH more expensive than the prevention (as it always is), and it will be your undereducated kids (if we cut educational funding today) who will be paying for it.

Do you love this country and want it to succeed? If so, I'd recommend careful consideration of your beliefs on this matter.

To me, education is far too important to trust to a bunch of politicians in DC. It is a local issue that should be dealt with locally. I also do not believe that any arm of local, state or federal government should have to deal with unions. You want good education at a lower cost, completely eliminate the teacher's union. It is you who need to reconsider how schools are funded and go down to the elected school board and tell them....don't pass it off to a bunch of bureaucrats in DC whose only educational goal for children is to re-affirm this sheep-like belief in the federal government.

I don't buy into the federal neediness argument either--especially when you look at the federal D.O.Ed. track record since its inception in 1979--very, very sad performance. At present, local school reliance on federal funds is less than 10% of district revenues.

Besides, the feds don't have the money to send to Harrisburg anyway...they just printed $600 billion more on Wednesday and the price of gold jumped to all time highs. Eventually, schools will have to ween themselves off the federal tit anyway. The feds are going belly up and so will everybody who relies on them.

The idea of federal funding for education is a relatively brand new (1970s vintage) progressive idea that is a MISERABLE, MISERABLE FAILURE. At present, local schools have less than 10% of their budget with federal funds. Lets nip it in the bud before we really do totally rely on Washington.

[lonewolf]

How is it that Bush's tax cuts took us into a recession and nearly a depression?

Who are you trying to bullshit?

If you actually believe that, then I have no choice but to determine that you are completely and utterly CLUELESS about all things economic and I won't argue with you anymore on the subject.

However, if you admit that that statement is only a mindless partisan political rant, then I will reinstate you as legitimate (but somewhat misguided) on the topic of economics.

Now go away or I will taunt you a second time.

[Banned]

. And thew rich have not helped create any jobs, although they did get richer.

Who does create jobs? Poor people? Has a poor person ever hired you and given you a paycheck? Poor people do not start businesses and do not create payrolls. Rich people do those things. But lets keep punishing rich for being rich, right?

Government does not create free market jobs, they only hire more government bureaucrats. (which 99% are a waste of my tax dollars)

[f.sciarrillo]

[edt]

[Hawk]

Bill, you are still babbling that Bush's tax cuts started the deficit. That is false. Look at history - You will see that it started long before Bush. Also, spending goes up with every Pres. You making it sounds like Bush is the one who started it is total and utter bull shit ..

Aso, the main reason I never bitched about Bush is because I never really payed attention till later in his term. That and I know bitching about Obama gets that tingle in your leg fluttering .. lol ..

Read my words. "Bush doubled the deficit and took it to 10 Trillion". Now any simple minded first grader will be able to divide 10 by 2 and get 5. Huh, it must have been around Five Trillion when GW took office .

Gee Frank, I also repeated Reagan doubled the deficit. Bush 1 increased the deficit. Clinton had a surplus. Bush spent the surplus in the form of paesonal checks to everyone rather than pay down the deficit. Bush could have payed down the deficit and NOT ONE word was said on FOX about the deficit...go figure...

So I NEVER said Bush started the deficit. You can't even get it right when it's right in front of you...

What I said about the tax cuts is again, first grade math. If you take in 2 and spend 2 you have no deficit. If you decide that you like the rich so much that you're not going to take as much from them anymore, you take in 1 and spend 2 and you have a deficit...
So if you cut taxes by a trillion, you will add a trillion to the deficit. Obama is still living with those tax cuts for the last two years.

I have a grandson who can explaqin it to you if that would help.

[lonewolf]

Read my words. "Bush doubled the deficit and took it to 10 Trillion". Now any simple minded first grader will be able to divide 10 by 2 and get 5. Huh, it must have been around Five Trillion when GW took office .

Gee Frank, I also repeated Reagan doubled the deficit. Bush 1 increased the deficit. Clinton had a surplus.

So I NEVER said Bush started the deficit. You can't even get it right when it's right in front of you...

Rephrased for reality:

"During the Bush Administration, Congress doubled the deficit and took it to 10 Trillion"

"I also repeated that during the Reagan Administration, Congress doubled the deficit. During Bush 1, Congress increased the deficit. During the Clinton Administration, Congress had a surplus."

[Banned]

Bill, you are still babbling that Bush's tax cuts started the deficit. That is false. Look at history - You will see that it started long before Bush. Also, spending goes up with every Pres. You making it sounds like Bush is the one who started it is total and utter bull shit ..

Aso, the main reason I never bitched about Bush is because I never really payed attention till later in his term. That and I know bitching about Obama gets that tingle in your leg fluttering .. lol ..

Read my words. "Bush doubled the deficit and took it to 10 Trillion". Now any simple minded first grader will be able to divide 10 by 2 and get 5. Huh, it must have been around Five Trillion when GW took office .

Gee Frank, I also repeated Reagan doubled the deficit. Bush 1 increased the deficit. Clinton had a surplus.

So I NEVER said Bush started the deficit. You can't even get it right when it's right in front of you...

What I said about the tax cuts is again, first grade math. If you take in 2 and spend 2 you have no deficit. If you decide that you like the rich so much that you're not going to take as much from them anymore, you take in 1 and spend 2 and you have a deficit...
So if you cut taxes by a trillion, you will add a trillion to the deficit. Obama is still living with those tax cuts for the last two years.

I have a grandson who can explaqin it to you if that would help.

It took 8 years for the liberal socialist W. Bush to increase the debt by $5 trillion. It has taken Obama less than 2 years to add an additional $4 trillion. So, according to your own posts, Obama is about 4 times worse than Bush.

[f.sciarrillo]

[edt]

[Hawk]

Aso, the main reason I never bitched about Bush is because I never really payed attention till later in his term. .

Frank that is a straight out lie. Unfortunately for you I have a political memory.

The very first time we discussed the deficit is when you claimed Obama put us at (something like) 12 TRILLION in debt. When I tried to tell you that Obama added to a deficit of 10TRILLION that was there when Bush left office, you spent days and post after post telling me how wrong I was because there was NO deficit when Bush left office.

Now Frank, do you want me to search for it and paste your, "Bush had no deficit rant " ?

[Hawk]

Bill, you are still babbling that Bush's tax cuts started the deficit. That is false. Look at history - You will see that it started long before Bush. Also, spending goes up with every Pres. You making it sounds like Bush is the one who started it is total and utter bull shit ..

Aso, the main reason I never bitched about Bush is because I never really payed attention till later in his term. That and I know bitching about Obama gets that tingle in your leg fluttering .. lol ..

Read my words. "Bush doubled the deficit and took it to 10 Trillion". Now any simple minded first grader will be able to divide 10 by 2 and get 5. Huh, it must have been around Five Trillion when GW took office .

Gee Frank, I also repeated Reagan doubled the deficit. Bush 1 increased the deficit. Clinton had a surplus.

So I NEVER said Bush started the deficit. You can't even get it right when it's right in front of you...

What I said about the tax cuts is again, first grade math. If you take in 2 and spend 2 you have no deficit. If you decide that you like the rich so much that you're not going to take as much from them anymore, you take in 1 and spend 2 and you have a deficit...
So if you cut taxes by a trillion, you will add a trillion to the deficit. Obama is still living with those tax cuts for the last two years.

I have a grandson who can explaqin it to you if that would help.

It took 8 years for the liberal socialist W. Bush to increase the debt by $5 trillion. It has taken Obama less than 2 years to add an additional $4 trillion. So, according to your own posts, Obama is about 4 times worse than Bush.

I can't find any link that says Obama added 4 trillion.